>>14246861Well yes, you're definitely right. There's a problem, though. Gamefreak doesn't specifically design pokemon with 4x weakness to rock TO be weak to rock as a game mechanic.
Psuedos aren't ever officially stated to my knowledge, but they are a pattern witnessed and felt. My main point is, the term is so inconsistent due to how much it's changed, that Gamefreak is obviously not designing them around those ideas, but something different.
While something like Volcarona I don't KNOW to be a pseudo, it feels like it in all but the fan definition. So either the fan term is faulty, or useless.
>>14246673If you read the post, you'd see that I noted against that argument already.
As I explained
>>14246687 here, Psuedo-legendaries are a fan term that constructed from a pattern we've all witnessed within the games that's obviously intentional on GF's part. We also see this with the legendary trios, regional birds, etc..., where they're never explicitly mentioned as being such, but because every single game's had it and for a reason, we can undrestand it.
The purpose of a pseudo-legend is the aforementioned high-effort high-reward Pokemon. As such, we try to find definitions for them, but can only do so by listing the commonalities of the known Psuedos. The reason for this is because "feel" isn't adequate in defining something.
However, the definition is inherently flawed. You say that all it is is a 3 stage evolution with 600 BST, but that rule HAS changed. That's what it is NOW, but it wasn't always. Every generation it's changed. The reason why is because it's not a set definition that Gamefreak even is aware of.. in fact, it's not even a definition, just a list of similarities.
So we can clarify these facts:
-Pseudos exist, and are intentional as they are consistent
-There is no official definition
-"Pseudo-legendary" is a pure fan term to describe this re-occuring phenomenon.
-It's been changed before
The definition is hazy. It's unclear like I said.
